1. Developmental Biology
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Regulation of nerve growth and patterning by cell surface protein disulphide isomerase

Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 915
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e54612 doi: 10.7554/eLife.54612

Abstract

Contact repulsion of growing axons is an essential mechanism for spinal nerve patterning. In birds and mammals the embryonic somites generate a linear series of impenetrable barriers, forcing axon growth cones to traverse one half of each somite as they extend towards their body targets. This study shows that protein disulphide isomerase provides a key component of these barriers, mediating contact repulsion at the cell surface in chick half-somites. Repulsion is reduced both in vivo and in vitro by a range of methods that inhibit enzyme activity. The activity is critical in initiating a nitric oxide/S-nitrosylation-dependent signal transduction pathway that regulates the growth cone cytoskeleton. Rat forebrain grey matter extracts contain a similar activity, and the enzyme is expressed at the surface of cultured human astrocytic cells and rat cortical astrocytes. We suggest this system is co-opted in the brain to counteract and regulate aberrant nerve terminal growth.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Geoffrey MW Cook

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Catia Sousa

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Julia Schaeffer

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Katherine Wiles

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Prem Jareonsettasin

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Asanish Kalyanasundaram

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Eleanor Walder

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Catharina Casper

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Serena Patel

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Pei Wei Chua

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gioia Riboni-Verri

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Mansoor Raza

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Nol Swaddiwudhipong

    School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andrew Hui

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ameer Abdullah

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Saj Wajed

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Roger J Keynes

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    rjk10@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1557-7684

Funding

Medical Research Council

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Roger J Keynes

Wellcome

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Roger J Keynes

Spinal Research

  • Julia Schaeffer

Trinity College, University of Cambridge

  • Roger J Keynes

University of Cambridge

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Catia Sousa
  • Julia Schaeffer
  • Katherine Wiles
  • Prem Jareonsettasin
  • Asanish Kalyanasundaram
  • Eleanor Walder
  • Catharina Casper
  • Serena Patel
  • Pei Wei Chua
  • Gioia Riboni-Verri
  • Mansoor Raza
  • Nol Swaddiwudhipong
  • Andrew Hui
  • Ameer Abdullah
  • Saj Wajed
  • Roger J Keynes

Rosetrees Trust

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Julia Schaeffer
  • Roger J Keynes

The Anatomical Society

  • Eleanor Walder

Amgen Foundation Summer Scholarship

  • Gioia Riboni-Verri

The authors declare that the funders provided research equipment and laboratory consumables, as well as salary support for Julia Schaeffer, Eleanor Walder and Gioia Riboni-Verri.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Chick embryos were used for this work, and all experiments were carried out at earlier developmental stages than those that require ethical approval.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Carol A Mason, Columbia University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 19, 2019
  2. Accepted: May 23, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 26, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 28, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: June 3, 2020 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: June 12, 2020 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2020, Cook et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 915
    Page views
  • 128
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Patricia Giselle Cipriani et al.
    Research Article Updated

    We describe MIP-1 and MIP-2, novel paralogous C. elegans germ granule components that interact with the intrinsically disordered MEG-3 protein. These proteins promote P granule condensation, form granules independently of MEG-3 in the postembryonic germ line, and balance each other in regulating P granule growth and localization. MIP-1 and MIP-2 each contain two LOTUS domains and intrinsically disordered regions and form homo- and heterodimers. They bind and anchor the Vasa homolog GLH-1 within P granules and are jointly required for coalescence of MEG-3, GLH-1, and PGL proteins. Animals lacking MIP-1 and MIP-2 show temperature-sensitive embryonic lethality, sterility, and mortal germ lines. Germline phenotypes include defects in stem cell self-renewal, meiotic progression, and gamete differentiation. We propose that these proteins serve as scaffolds and organizing centers for ribonucleoprotein networks within P granules that help recruit and balance essential RNA processing machinery to regulate key developmental transitions in the germ line.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Zhaoyang Liu et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common spine disorder affecting children worldwide, yet little is known about the pathogenesis of this disorder. Here, we demonstrate that genetic regulation of structural components of the axial skeleton, the intervertebral discs, and dense connective tissues (i.e., ligaments and tendons) is essential for the maintenance of spinal alignment. We show that the adhesion G protein-coupled receptor ADGRG6, previously implicated in human AIS association studies, is required in these tissues to maintain typical spine alignment in mice. Furthermore, we show that ADGRG6 regulates biomechanical properties of tendon and stimulates CREB signaling governing gene expression in cartilaginous tissues of the spine. Treatment with a cAMP agonist could mirror aspects of receptor function in culture, thus defining core pathways for regulating these axial cartilaginous and connective tissues. As ADGRG6 is a key gene involved in human AIS, these findings open up novel therapeutic opportunities for human scoliosis.